5th ACE Conference.

28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR SOIL STRUCTURE-

INTERACTION OF PILE FOUNDATIONS
Ryan Kurnia1, Riko Zulhendra2, Robby Permata3
1
Rekayasa Pratama Konsultan, Padang. Email: erkhayan@gmail.com
2
Rekayasa Pratama Konsultan, Padang. Email: rp.engineering.padang@gmail.com
3
Universitas Bung Hatta, Padang. Email: robby.permata@bunghatta.ac.id

ABSTRACT
Soil structure interaction (SSI) is often necessary to obtain the foundation and
superstructure response during the earthquake. In SSI, the superstructure, the foundation,
and the soil must be analyzed simultaneously. While using continuum finite element
analysis provides a very accurate result, it took a considerable amount of time and
resources. Thus it is not suitable for practical purposes. In this study, a linearized p-y
curve is used as spring stiffness to simulate the soil resistance. Therefore, superstructure,
foundation, and soil can be present in one mode which is faster and cheaper compared to
solid continuum finite element model. The result indicated that using linearized p-y curve
as spring stiffness every one meter along the foundation depth yield to a similar result as
finite difference methods. This simplified method can be used for modeling complete (i.e.
superstructure, foundation, and soil) bridge structure, highway, building etc. Hence, the
analysis will become more realistic.

Keywords: soil-structure interaction, p-y curve, linearization, spring, finite element

Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

Structural engineering and geotechnical engineering are two closely connected subject
as the load is transferred from superstructure to foundation ,and the foundation then
transfer the load to the soil or rock. However, in practice, the two subjects are analyzed
and designed separately. Structural engineer commonly uses software that possesses the
ability to model the superstructure in great detail and accuracy, but asssumed the
foundation and soil as a fixed support. On the other hand, the geotechnical engineer uses
software with advance soil modeling, but the superstructure is only represented by the
reaction force obtained from superstructure analysis. Due to the superstructure,
foundation, and the soil are influencing each other, the three should be put together in
one model and should be modeled sufficiently well in order to obtain more accurate
behavior of both structure and subgrade, particularly when significant earthquake
loading was expected. It must include a good soil-structure interaction (SSI) (Aron and
Jonas, 2012).

Several methods, mostly based on finite element methods, are available to model SSI.
Firstly, continuum element is used to model subgrade and foundation while the
superstructure can be modeled using either line, shell, or continuum element. This is the
most accurate and robust approach, but it require sophisticated finite element software
like ABAQUS and ANSYS. It also takes a lot of time to complete the analysis too.

11
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

Secondly, line and shell element are used to model superstructure. The foundation is
modeled using a line element, and the subgrade is modeled using either nonlinear or
linear spring element. The second approach is simpler and faster. However, it is not as
robust as the first approach, but the second approach is widely used in practice due to its
simplicity and speed in analysis and design processes. Furthermore, most of the civil
engineering structure can be modeled using line and shell element.

Lam et al. (2007) have reported a various technique for modeling SSI of pile and
caisson foundation incorporating line; shell; and a linear or a nonlinear spring element
for practical use. The main challenge in using spring as the representation of subgrade is
how to estimate the spring stiffness from the available soil data. Several researchers
(Muschelišvili and Muschelišvili 1953; Terzaghi 1955; Broms 1964; Matlock, 1970;
Poulos, 1971; Scott, 1980; Rani and Prashant, 2015) have proposed the spring stiffness
estimation based on modulus of elasticity. However, those predictions only consider
modulus of elasticity as the sole factor without considering others soil properties and the
soil type into account. Furthermore, using those formulas also leave the practitioner
abundant of choices to choose.

Another method is using the p-y curve. The p-y curve can simulate the soil resistance as
a series of nonlinear spring that vary with depth. A wide range of soil properties and soil
type are considered in estimating the value of the p-y curve. Ahmed et al. (2014)
conducted a study which using p-y curve as nonlinear spring of pile foundation. They
used Ensoft L-Pile program to generate the p-y curve of the soil and used those value as
an input of nonlinear spring of the similar model in SAP 2000. Furthermore, they made
a similar model in finite element analysis software ABAQUS and compare the
displacement and the bending moment of the pile from the three models. The result
indicated that the bending moment of SAP 2000 are in good agreement with the bending
moment of ABAQUS and L Pile with condition the nonlinear spring were placed
minimum every 1.6 meters of depth.

Despite the result from nonlinear spring model are in good agreement with a solid
continuum finite element model, it also took a long time to analyze if the model were
sophisticated. This is less practical for practitioners since trial and error are necessary in
analysis and design. Nonlinear spring takes a long time to analyze because its stiffness
matrix is not constant. On the others hand, linear spring has faster analysis time due to
its stiffness matrix is constant over the course of analysis. Considering civil structures
are usually designed to only undergo small deformation within their material elastic
range, the linearization of a p-y curve seems reasonable enough to simplify the analysis.
The aim of this study is to develop a procedure to linearize the nonlinear p-y curve that
possesses similar performance compared to nonlinear p-y curve spring in analyzing soil-
structure interaction.

12
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 General Procedure

Terzaghi (1955) Recommended the secant stiffness of p-y curve are at half of its
ultimate capacity. However, Lam et al. (2007) argue that the secant stiffness of p-y
curve can be predicted at an expected maximum allowable deformation of the pile head.
Flowchart of this study is presented in Figure 1. Firstly a finite difference model using
L-Pile software was developed. P-y curve and bending moment of the model was then
extracted. Secondly, a p-y curve was linearized by taking secant line of the p-y curve at
0.5, 0.4, 0.35, and 0.3 of its ultimate capacity resulting four linear spring stiffness.
Finally, finite element models similar to L Pile model were recreated using line element
(representing foundation) and a spring element (representing soil) with the linearized
spring used as soil stiffness value. The same procedure was repeated for five level of
pile head deformation: 5 cm, 13 cm, 20 cm, 40 cm, and 65 cm. As a result, one L Pile
model and four finite element models are created for each level of pile head
deformation. In total, five L-pile model and 20 finite element models were employed in
this study.

Figure 1. Flowchart

As mentioned earlier, the geotechnical engineer uses software that can model soil and
foundation accurately but superstructure are simplified only accounted as input force
and moment for the software. While the structural uses software for modeling
superstructure but hardly can model foundation and soil. L Pile is analysis and design
software for the various type of pile foundation. It easy to use yet accurate. One of the
goal if this study is to create a finite element model with incorporating line element and
linear spring that has a similar response to L Pile program. Therefore, the bending
moment of the finite element model was compared to the bending moment from the L
Pile program. If finite element model that has the similar response to L Pile model is
found, then the soil, foundation, and superstructure can be analyzed together in one
finite element software e.g SAP 2000, Etabs, STAAD.Pro etc.

13
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

2.2 Modeling

Figure 2. Lpile model (finite different) and finite element model

A bored pile with 1 meter and 37 meters of diameter and length respectively were
modeled in L Pile. The pile was embedded 21 meters within 5 layers of soil. The pile
head was fixed to any rotation. This treatment is necessary as most of the pile used to
support civil structure e.g. bridge and building are fixed to any rotation. A displacement
was applied at the head of pile. The soil data for L Pile program input are presented in
Table 2. Similar models were created using finite element model, a line element was
used to model pile foundation and a linear spring was placed per one meter along the
pile as soil replacement (see Figure 2). A roller support was employed at the bottom of
the pile. These configurations are taken based on Sambas river bridge in Kalimantan,
Indonesia.

Table 1. Model numbering

Pile head Linearization

No. Deformation
(cm) 0.3 Ult 0.35 Ult 0.4 Ult 0.5 Ult
1 5 Group 1
2 13 Group 2
3 20 Group 3
4 40 Group 4
5 65 Group 5

Due to there are 20 finite element models in this study, this model was numbered for
further use. Table 1 presented the numbering. There are four finite element model each

14
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

pile head displacement. Those models were lumped to one group name. For example,
four finite element model with the pile head deformation of 5 cm will further be called
group 1. In pile head displacement 13 cm will be called group 2 and so on.

2.3 Linearization of p-y Curve

In this study, p-y curve are linearized and used as linear spring stiffness. The ellaborated
explanation of p-y curve can be found in (Desai and Zaman, 2013). L Pile software
from ensoft can generate the p-y curve relatively easy and fast, so it will be used
extensively for generating p-y curve in this study. P-y curve was generated per one
meter from the soil surface to the bottom end of the pile. Figure 4 presented the p-y
curves generated from L Pile. The linearization of a p-y curve can be determined by
drawing a horizontal line at 0.5 of its ultimate capacity and draw the secant line at the
intersection between the p-y curve and horizontal line as shown in Figure 3. The linear
spring stiffness is a gradient of the secant line. The same procedure is applied to
determine the linear spring stiffness at 0. 4, 0.35, and 0.3 ultimate capacity.

Ultimate Capacity

Figure 3. p-y curve linearization

2.4 Soil Data

The soil data are taken from a real standard penetration test (SPT) of Sambas rivers
bridge project in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The data were transformed to meet the input
criteria of L Pile program. The data transformation used the theory based on Bowles
(1996). Table 2. presented the detail of data input for L pile program. the soil consists of
four layers of clay and two layers of sand. P-y curve generated from L Pile program are
presented in Figure 4. Notice that there are 20 p-y curves on Figure 4. It started at depth
16 meters and ended at 37 meters meaning the pile was embedded within the soil from
depth 16 meters to 37 meters vertical below the pile head.

15
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

Table 2. Soil data for LPile input data

γ`
No. depth (m) type N-SPT Cu φ k ε50
(KN/m3)
1 0 - 7 Clay 1.57 4.00 6.29 - - 0.02
2 7 - 15 Clay 7.50 5.00 37.50 - - 0.02
3 15 - 18 Clay 20.00 6.00 100.00 - - 0.015
4 18 - 21 Sand 31.67 7.00 0.00 34.47 16900 -
5 21 - 34 Sand 52.77 9.23 0.00 40.05 29300 -

Figure 4. p-y curve generated from L Pile

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

For every level of displacement, one model of L Pile and four models of the finite
element were created, and their bending moments were compared in one graph. The
finite element model consists of a line element representing the pile foundation and
spring to simulate the soil lateral resistant. The bending moment of four finite element
models were compared to L Pile bending moment to evaluate which bending moment of
finite element models was the fittest to the L Pile bending moment.

16
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

a. Bending moment (kN-m) b. Bending moment (kN-m)

c. Bending moment (kN-m) d. Bending moment (kN-m)

17
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

d. Bending moment (kN-m)

Figure 5. Bending moment comparison

Figure 5 showed the bending moment comparison for each level of pile head
displacement. Figure 5(a), Figure 5(b), Figure 5(c), Figure 5(d), and Figure 5(e),
presented the comparison of L Pile bending moment with finite element model bending
moment for pile head displacement of 5 cm, 13 cm, 20 cm, 40 cm, and 65 cm
respectively. It might be a little bit difficult to visually observe the graph comparison in
Figure 5 in high precision. To tackle that problem, the square of the Pearson product
moment correlation coefficient (R-Square) test was employed to test the degree of
similarity of L Pile bending moment and finite element model bending moment. R-
square value =1 indicated the finite element bending moment fits perfectly with L Pile
model while R-square value =0 means there is no correlation between two graphs. The
R-square test results were plotted on the graph in Figure 6.

Figure 6 reveals the strongest correlation for Group 1 is at linearization 0.3 ultimate
capacity. The correlation decreases as the linearization factor increased to 0.35, 0.4 and
0.5. A similar pattern was observed at Group 2, but the correlation at 0.3 and 0.35
ultimate capacity are almost equal. Interestingly, for Group 4 and Group 5, the opposite
pattern was found. The strongest correlation is observed at 0.5 ultimate capacity and the
correlation decreased at 0.4, 0.35, and 0.3 ultimate capacity.

Broadly speaking, we found that if pile head displacement is small enough (less than 20
cm), then the linearization can be taken at 0.3-0.35 of p-y curve ultimate capacity. On
the others hand, if the deformation is large (more than 25 cm), the linearization at 0.5
ultimate capacity is recommended. However, considering civil structure are designed to

18
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

undergo only small deformation, the linearization of the p-y curve should be taken at
0.3-0.35 p-y curve ultimate capacity. Bridge, tunnel, and highway safety commission
(KKJTJ) of Indonesian government limit the deformation of pile head to 1 Inch+H/200,
where H is the length of pile freestanding. In this study H =16 meter, thus the maximum
pile head deformation is only 10.54 cm. Generally, pile freestanding as high as 16 is
considered high enough in Indonesia and very few cases that the pile freestanding
exceeded that number. Therefore, linearization of p-y curve at 0.3-0.35 ultimate
capacity can be applied generally in Indonesia.

Figure 6. R-square test

4. CONCLUSION

Linear spring resulted from linearized p-y curve can be used for modeling soil-structure
interaction, and their result is in good agreement with the finite different model (L Pile).
The linearization has to be made according to the pile head displacement. However, due
to the civil structure including pile head deformation are only allowed to undergo small
deformation, linearization at 0.3-0.35 ultimate capacity are recommended.

In our view, this method could be used to model the complete structure of a bridge, a
highway, and a building. The soil, the foundation, and the superstructure could be put
together in one model using one finite element software by replacing the soil with a
linearized p-y curve,In this study, however, only singe vertical pile was analyzed. Group
effect and battered effect on p-y curve are not incorporated in this study. The pile
foundation is commonly working in a group. The stressing area of the pile in the group
are intersecting between adjacent piles. Furthermore, if significant lateral load is
expected, the pile foundation is often battered. Batter position also has an effect on
constructing the p-y curve. Thus, the group and battered effect on p-y curve must be
accounted if group pile or/and battered pile are analyzed in the study.

To further our research, we plan to incorporate group effect and battered effect in our
study. Complete model will be used instead of only soil and foundation. If possible,

19
 5th ACE Conference. 28 November 2018, Padang, Sumatra Barat

solid continuum finite element analysis will be employed to verify our simplified
model.

5. REFERENCES

Aron, C. and Jonas, E. 2012. Structural Element Approaches for Soil-Structure

Interaction. Thesis for Magister Degree. Programme Structural Engineering and
Building Performance Design, Chalmers University of Technology
Bowles, L. E. 1996. Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-hill.
Broms, B. B. 1964. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils‘ Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division. ASCE
Desai, C. S. and Zaman, M. 2013. Advanced Geotechnical Engineering: Soil-Structure
Interaction using Computer and Material Models. CRC Press.
Khodair, Y. and Abdel-Mohti, A. 2014. Numerical Analysis of Pile–Soil Interaction
under Axial and Lateral Loads. International Journal of Concrete Structures and
Materials.
Lam, I. P., Law, H. and Martin, G. R. 2007. Bridge Foundations: Modeling Large Pile
Groups and Caissons for Seismic Design.
Matlock, H. 1970. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. Offshore
Technology in Civil Engineering Hall of Fame Papers from the Early Years.
Muschelišvili N. I. and Muschelišvili N. I. 1953. Some basic problems of the
mathematical theory of elasticity: fundamental equations, plane theory of
elasticity, torsion and bending. Springer.
Poulos, H. G. 1971. Behavior of laterally loaded piles I. Single Piles. Journal of Soil
Mechanics & Foundations Div.
Rani, S. and Prashant, A. 2015. Estimation of the Linear Spring Constant for a Laterally
Loaded Monopile Embedded in Nonlinear Soil. International Journal of
Geomechanics.
Scott, R. F. 1980. Analysis of centrifuge pile tests; simulation of pile-driving. California
Institute of Technology.
Terzaghi, K. 1955. Evaluation of subgrade reaction. Géotechnique.

20